IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Dilip Mishra - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56202 of 2021
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 of IPC and Section 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 315 and 313 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25 & 26 - Criminal Conspiracy and Murder – Grant of Bail - Investigating officer made spot inspection and collected two empty cartridges, blood stained stone and goggles etc. from spot. Investigating officer also recorded statement of witnesses of inquest report under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating officer also collected a CCTV footage and DVR and also collected call detail report of family members of deceased - It is true that Court has always emphasised that personal liberty of person is prime consideration but that personal liberty has to be exercised within bounds of law and in a manner so that peace and tranquillity is not disturbed. Courts have emphasised that valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of society in general has to be balanced while considering bail application. (Para 43)
Finding of the court :
Applicant has history of 48 criminal cases to his credit out of which in some cases he has been acquitted and in some cases he has been enlarged on bail. The record reflects that after coming out of jail, he has committed offences, hence, it cannot be ruled out that if applicant is released on bail he shall not commit a crime after release on bail - Trial has not yet commenced, and that statement of witnesses has not yet been recorded by the Court, therefore, keeping in view the criminal antecedent of the accused, there is every likelihood that he can influence or tamper the evidence - It is pertinent to note that this Court while granting the bail has not considered the law of criminal history and further the orders passed on bail application against said co-accused person do not disclose as to what was criminal history of those accused persons, therefore, this fact itself distinguishes the fact of the applicant-accused against all co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court.
Result: Bail application rejected
JUDGMENT :
Saral Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun and Sri Shashank Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 28 of 2017, under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
4. On 12.01.2017 at about 7.00 O'clock in the evening one Dr. A.K. Bansal was murdered by unknown assailants. A first information report was lodged on the same day i.e. 12.01.2017 against unknown persons bearing Case Crime No.28 of 2017, under Section 302 of I.P.C. & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act at P.S. Kydganj, District Prayagaj.
5. Thereafter, the police commenced investigation and recorded the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of first informant-Pradeep Kumar Bansal, brother of deceased. The investigating officer made spot inspection and collected two empty cartridges, blood stained stone and goggles etc. from the spot. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of witnesses of inquest report under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer also collected a CCTV footage and DVR and also collected call detail report of the family members of the deceased.
6. It appears that the investigating officer was informed by the informant that he has identified the person whose images appear on the CCTV footage of the incident in question. The names of the person identified were Yasir and Shoiab. The investigating officer on 26.3.2021 recorded the statement of Asif, brother of the accused-Yasir, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who identified out of the two persons one his elder brother Yasir and another Shoiab, friend of Yasir. He further stated that his brother Yasir was in touch with Shoiab and Maksud @ Zaid and they had committed number of crimes. He also disclosed that Maksud @ Zaid, committed the murder of his brother Yasir. In this respect, a first information report was lodged at Police Station Antu, Pratapgarh, under Section 302 of IPC, and in this case Maksud @ Zaid has been arrested and languishing in jail.
7. Later on, the police arrested Shoiab and immediately after his arrest, police in Nakal Fard recorded his statement wherein he has stated that the deceased had given Rs.55,000,00/- to one Alok Sinha for admission of his son but Alok Sinha could not manage the admission of son of deceased and had swindled the money of deceased. The deceased in this regard lodged an FIR against Alok Sinha, and in the said criminal case, Alok Sinha was arrested and was put in the jail in one number circle of B-class barrack, where Alok Sinha came in contact with the applicant-accused Dilip Mishra, Ashraf @ Akhatar Katra, Julfikar @ Tota, Gulam Rasool and Pawan Singh. He further stated that Alok Sinha conspired to kill the deceased with the applicant-accused and Ashraf @ Akhatar Katra. Thereafter, Maksud @ Zaid, Yasir and Shoiab were contacted by the applicant-accused and Ashraf @ Akhatar Katra through one Abrar Mulla. It was agreed that Rs.70 lakh was to be paid by Alok Sinha for the murder of the deceased. He further made disclosure in the statement as to how the murder of the deceased was committed.
8. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Shoiab under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he has reiterated the same statement which was recorded by the police on the arrest of the Shoiab in Nakal Fard. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Shoiab reiterated that the applicant-accused was in one number circle of B-Class barrack before Alok Sinha was put in the said barrack.
9. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that except t
Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and Anr.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.